[late]

Now you are disingenuously pretending that the global cooling measured from the 1940s to the 1970s was the same as the Ice Age scare.

" I was studying atmospheric physics at an internationally respected university in the 70s, when the big threat was considered to be global cooling."

You're the one faking it. Cooling was not "the big threat", the Ice Age scare was.

Is there any chance you could be less pathetic?

[Pants-of-dog]

No I don't. You simply made that up, as is your wont.

And you have agreed that as cold snaps kill a lot more people than heat waves, to the minor extent that anthropogenic factors like CO2 emissions are increasing global surface temperatures, they are saving lives, so people who oppose use of fossil fuels are just evil, twisted mass murderers.

So now we agree that anthropogenic climate change can cause extreme weather events that can in turn cause deaths.

This includes heat waves and cold snaps.

This also includes flooding, hurricanes, and other examples of lethal extreme weather events.

[BlutoSays]

This whole thread reminds me of car sales.

Create an urgency in the customer's mind. Don't let them think about it.


IT'S NOW OR NEVER.

[Truth To Power]

" I was studying atmospheric physics at an internationally respected university in the 70s, when the big threat was considered to be global cooling."

You're the one faking it. Cooling was not "the big threat", the Ice Age scare was.

Nope. Wrong again. Scientists were aware that the comparative warmth of the 20th century was a lot better than the LIA, and there was genuine concern that LIA conditions might be returning. An actual Ice Age was a more marginal, speculative threat.

Look: I was there, and studying atmospheric physics, so these topics were very current and I remember them well. You were evidently in diapers at the time, and do not know what you are talking about.

Is there any chance you could be less pathetic?

[Truth To Power]

So now we agree that anthropogenic climate change can cause extreme weather events that can in turn cause deaths.

Of course. Just as insulin, vaccinations, and seatbelts can cause deaths.

This includes heat waves and cold snaps.

If you ignore probability, and pretend, absurdly and disingenuously, that increasing CO2 increases the probability of cold snaps.

This also includes flooding, hurricanes, and other examples of lethal extreme weather events.

Which you seem to be claiming, without evidence, have increased due to use of fossil fuels.

[late]

Nope. Wrong again. Scientists were aware that the comparative warmth of the 20th century was a lot better than the LIA, and there was genuine concern that LIA conditions might be returning. An actual Ice Age was a more marginal, speculative threat.

Look: I was there, and studying atmospheric physics, so these topics were very current and I remember them well. You were evidently in diapers at the time, and do not know what you are talking about.

"I was studying atmospheric physics at an internationally respected university in the 70s, when the big threat was considered to be global cooling."

Still lying, the Ice Age scare was the big threat.. in Popular Mechanics...

Btw, I am 71.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course. Just as insulin, vaccinations, and seatbelts can cause deaths.

If you ignore probability, and pretend, absurdly and disingenuously, that increasing CO2 increases the probability of cold snaps.

Which you seem to be claiming, without evidence, have increased due to use of fossil fuels.

None of this is an argument or rebuttal.

Moving on…

Since we see that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is responsible for many deaths, and only seems to be reducing deaths by reducing some cold deaths (while causing others), then it is hard to argue that ACC is saving more lives than it takes.

[Steve_American]

Your "source" is absurd bull$#!+ with no basis in fact.

It's also an entirely imaginary number four orders of magnitude from the truth.

Well, Lurkers, what we have here is 2 people saying that their sources disagree. Neither of us provided a source for you to fact check.

It is up to you to decide.

My sources are climate experts, and his sources are climate deniers. So, google it.

.

[Truth To Power]

"I was studying atmospheric physics at an internationally respected university in the 70s, when the big threat was considered to be global cooling."

Still lying, the Ice Age scare was the big threat.. in Popular Mechanics...

It was a sensationalized scare story in a lot of the popular media -- which loves a good scare story, like anti-fossil-fuel scare stories. But it was not taken seriously by the majority of climate scientists. Global cooling was, because it was known to have already happened, and no one knew why, or how long it would continue, or how bad it would get. As it turned out, it was just an artifact of the multidecadal ocean circulation cycle, like the rapid warming of the 1970s-90s.

Btw, I am 71.

How did you survive so long with so little common sense?

[Truth To Power]

None of this is an argument or rebuttal.

Of course it is. It proves your beliefs are false and evil, and you cannot refute a word of it.

Since we see that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is responsible for many deaths,

But the prevention of many more...

and only seems to be reducing deaths by reducing some cold deaths

No "seems" about it, it definitely is.

(while causing others),

But many fewer than it prevents.

then it is hard to argue that ACC is saving more lives than it takes.

No it isn't. It is as easy and scientifically accurate as to argue as that insulin, vaccines, and seatbelts save more lives than they take. Watch:

Since we see that insulin/vaccines/seatbelts are responsible for many deaths,

But the prevention of many more...

and only seem to be reducing deaths by reducing some diabetic/viral disease/auto crash deaths

No "seems" about it, they definitely are.

(while causing others),

But many fewer than they prevent.

See? That wasn't so hard, was it? See how easy it is to understand things if you can just find a willingness to know indisputable facts of objective physical reality and follow self-evident logic? Why is that so hard for you?

[late]

How did you survive so long with so little common sense?

I don't lie.

[Truth To Power]

Well, Lurkers, what we have here is 2 people saying that their sources disagree. Neither of us provided a source for you to fact check.

It is up to you to decide.

My sources are climate experts,
Please provide that source.

I.e., realists.

Better yet, dear Lurkers, think about it. Is it really plausible that the almost imperceptible changes in climate that we have experienced since the 1930s and 40s are 1000x faster than previous natural climate changes?? We went from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age -- a much larger change than the warming of the last century -- in a few hundred years. Google "Younger Dryas" and ask yourself if modern climate change is really 1000x faster than that.

SA, sorry to say, is just makin' $#!+ up again.

[Truth To Power]

I don't lie.

What about all the absurd false claims you have made about what I have plainly written? You can't possibly believe them: no normal person over the age of six could.

[late]

What about all the absurd false claims you have made about what I have plainly written?

Scientists determine what a science says, not kooks on the internet.

You can keep babbling the same nonsense over and over, and because you are paid to do it, you will.

But it's the same horseshit Big Oil has been shilling for decades.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course it is. It proves your beliefs are false and evil, and you cannot refute a word of it.

But the prevention of many more...

No "seems" about it, it definitely is.

But many fewer than it prevents.

No it isn't. It is as easy and scientifically accurate as to argue as that insulin, vaccines, and seatbelts save more lives than they take. Watch:


But the prevention of many more...

No "seems" about it, they definitely are.

But many fewer than they prevent.

See? That wasn't so hard, was it? See how easy it is to understand things if you can just find a willingness to know indisputable facts of objective physical reality and follow self-evident logic? Why is that so hard for you?

None of this is an argument or rebuttal.

Most if it is not even complete sentences.

Now, provide evidence in the form of a quote and a link showing that ACC prevents more deaths than it causes, if that is what you are arguing.

[Truth To Power]

None of this is an argument or rebuttal.

Of course it is. You cannot alter facts by refusing to know them, sorry.

Most if it is not even complete sentences.

Because most readers are intelligent enough to understand that adding a subordinate or relative clause to a false statement to make it into a true one is one way of showing that the original is false, and honest enough not to pretend that they are unfamiliar with this form of response.

Now, provide evidence in the form of a quote and a link showing that ACC prevents more deaths than it causes, if that is what you are arguing.

Already done -- as you know, but are, as usual, disingenuously pretending not to.

[BlutoSays]

Scientists determine what a science says, not kooks on the internet.

You can keep babbling the same nonsense over and over, and because you are paid to do it, you will.

But it's the same horseshit Big Oil has been shilling for decades.

OMG! Profit by the oil companies. AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL!!!


We will make it right by confiscating more of the tax payers income, sending it to China (where the is no profit), and have them manufacture solar panels, wind turbines and battery systems for us.

[Truth To Power]

I don't lie.

There is an unfortunate asymmetry in almost all online forums: there is no rule against lying -- even baldly and transparently lying about what another poster has plainly said -- but there is a rule against identifying other posters' lies as such. This gives a great rhetorical advantage to the habitual, pathological liar.

[Steve_American]

Better yet, dear Lurkers, think about it. Is it really plausible that the almost imperceptible changes in climate that we have experienced since the 1930s and 40s are 1000x faster than previous natural climate changes?? We went from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age -- a much larger change than the warming of the last century -- in a few hundred years. Google "Younger Dryas" and ask yourself if modern climate change is really 1000x faster than that.

SA, sorry to say, is just makin' $#!+ up again.

Lurkers, his reply is not to provide a link to a source, it is to argue from what he thinks are facts.

My reply to his source is =>
1] The heating we have seen since 1750 is 1.2 deg. C. The cooling to go into the Little Ice Age was about half that.
2] The orbital cycles that cause the shift from ice ages to warmer times and back, etc., are in a cooling trend now and have been for all the last 10K years.
3] Dr. Britt has shown that humans were why the period from 10K ya until 1300 AD had a very flat temp curve was human actions related to growing/spreading farming and cattle herding. Then, the Black Death killed 1/3 to 1/2 of the farmers and herders, which resulted in CO2 and CH4 being pulled out of the air, fairly rapidly by forest re growth. So, the cause of the cooling was related to humans and not natural.
4] So, my source may have left the Little Ice Age out of his thinking, as a case of unnatural climate change.
5] BTW, the LIA lasted until the early 1800s so until the human population had grown a lot from the low point of around 1450 AD and had started burning coal in a big way.
6] In any case, my seat of my pants calculation is that the LIA developed slower than he thinks, and it ended as part of ACC and not "naturally".

.

[Truth To Power]

Lurkers, his reply is not to provide a link to a source, it is to argue from what he thinks are facts.

They are indisputably facts. That is why, unlike you, I urge readers to think for themselves rather than just accept and believe.

1] The heating we have seen since 1750 is 1.2 deg. C. The cooling to go into the Little Ice Age was about half that.

Nope. Flat wrong. It was more:
"During this epoch, often known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped by as much as two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... ed-history

2] The orbital cycles that cause the shift from ice ages to warmer times and back, etc., are in a cooling trend now and have been for all the last 10K years.

Right: if CO2 emissions from fossil fuels do not provide enough warming effect to save us, we could well be facing a new Ice Age.

3] Dr. Britt has shown that humans were why the period from 10K ya until 1300 AD had a very flat temp curve was human actions related to growing/spreading farming and cattle herding. Then, the Black Death killed 1/3 to 1/2 of the farmers and herders, which resulted in CO2 and CH4 being pulled out of the air, fairly rapidly by forest re growth. So, the cause of the cooling was related to humans and not natural.

No, Dr. Britt did not "show" that. He merely claimed it on the basis of flimsy evidence and risible post hoc fallacies. In fact, it has been shown that the LIA had already started by the time of the Black Death, and the cooler temperatures probably contributed to it by changing Asian rats' wintering strategies.

4] So, my source may have left the Little Ice Age out of his thinking, as a case of unnatural climate change.

That merely proves that anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers will say and believe anything.

5] BTW, the LIA lasted until the early 1800s so until the human population had grown a lot from the low point of around 1450 AD and had started burning coal in a big way.

No, there was still almost no use of coal when the LIA ended.

6] In any case, my seat of my pants calculation is that the LIA developed slower than he thinks, and it ended as part of ACC and not "naturally".

But the problem is, you don't know any of the relevant science, and your "calculations" are nonscience.